Question: What are "extraordinary circumstances" (Re filibuster)

[Mika]

If not now, when? :shrug:

[yankeedem]

1. When the Democrats take the Senate, and Pukes

want to filibuster. :eyes:

[Mika]

6. Um.. when will that be?

2006?

:hi:

[Gothmog]

2. Up to discretion of each senator

Each senator has their own discretion on this issue. I would personally define this to include Bush trying to send either Scalia or Thomas up as Chief Justice. They are unacceptable and the filibuster should be used if Bush attempts to nominate either one for Chief Justice.

[makhno]

18. Why are they unacceptable?

Is Priscilla Owen acceptable?

[TaleWgnDg]

3. No. Re-phrase the question. Because "extraordinary circumstances" . . .

.
No. Re-phrase the question. Because "extraordinary circumstances" . . . is in the eye of the beholder. That is, "extraordinary circumstances" is determined by each and every Senator, which means it depends upon the discretion of each Democrat.

So. The Dems have given-up the filibuster for 3 off-the-wall federal appellate court Bush nominees, namely, Owens, Brown, and Pryor.

In exchange the Repubs have promised not to change the Senate rules of filibuster.

[jobycom]

9. Yep. Status Quo Ante Bellum. But the Republicans look like they lost

All the public saw was a fight to overturn Senate rules, and they saw the Democrats prevent it from happening. And Reid got to insult Bush and the neocons to top it all off.

[markus]

12. How is it Status Quo Ante Bellum if they get Owens and Rogers?

This was a strategic retreat from conflict, but I don't see what we gained.

The new baseline for extreme does not include these two or the other fellow (Pryor?). Therefore, it would be a violation of the agreement to fillibuster a candidate of their views for SCOTUS.

The argument you hear tonight from the Talibornagains is that it is no longer acceptable to oppose people because of their "deeply held beliefs". That quote came from a spokesman from Focus on the Family (I missed the name). But we know what that is code for.

So, how when push comes to shove over SCOTUS, we will attempt to block their equally radical nominee, take it to a filibuster, see the rule change invoke, and lose.

We were rolled.

[jobycom]

13. What scenario did you envision where we wouldn't get Owens and Rogers?

Reid knew the votes. We either get them with the filibuster, or we get them without. The Republicans are the majority--they won't allow themselves a total defeat. This is the real world, not the world we wish it was.

[markus]

16. In this one

Frist didn't have the votes yet, but scheduled anyway to try to pressure one of the six to cave. As long as the GOP side of the Gang of Six were still talking, Frist couldn't know he had the votes.

We needed them to give up just one of the freaks, so as not to set the new baseline. We didn't. We caved. And got nothing in return.

I may have become a raving left wing looney in recent years 9at least on days like today), but I do know how the game is played. I worked for John fucking Breaux for crissakes. I was on the Hill from 87' until '93, and never worked for anyone who was not a card carrying true believer in the DLC. I ever worked briefly for the fonder of the Blue Dogs, Collin Peterson.

What occured today was a strategic retreat by our side, nothing more. And we retreated to less certain ground, ceeding a tremendous advantage to our adversary: that the Terrible Three do not meet the criteria of exceptional. They are the new normal.

All they have to do from now on is send up one genuine snake-handlin', strychnine sippin' freak up in a bunch of otherwise heinous nominees. We get to lynch the one, and they get the rest.

All we needed the GOP wing of the gang was to offer up any one of the Terrible Three. Without that, we are in on sense Status Quo Ante Bellum.

We were rolled.

[jobycom]

20. I don't understand--Why would they have given up one of the three?

To me that sounds like the sports fans who call in and say "The Rangers should trade their backup shortstop to the Yankees for two starting pitchers and their power hitter."

What incentive did Frist or the six have to give up anyone? To preserve the filibuster? They could eliminate the filibuster, vote on the judges, and reinstall it later. They control everything. The mod Repubs weren't going to break with the party. Too big a blow to their party, which means too big a blow to their power.

And sad to say, those three are the norm. Not normal, but they are what Bush is going to nominate. We can filibuster until nothing gets done, lose public support until we have none, and Bush will still nominate that type of judge.

I don't see how this changes anything. It screwed up the neocon dreams of a blank check, but otherwise it was just a bunch of rhetoric.

[markus]

23. Becuase a real deal would mean they didn't have the votes

This just tells me Frist probably did have the votes, but either 1) it's all just a bit too distasteful for the handful of mod GOPers Or 2) we've been rolled, again, but somebody who plays the game better than we do.

[jobycom]

24. That's kind of how I see it.

Frist had the votes. But there were three parties, not two, involved, and all had to walk away with a win, or the thing would go to the floor, and that would be a big loss for everyone. No one wanted to kill the Senate filibuster.

So the Dems kept the filibuster and got to bad mouth Bush. The Repubs got the judges they were going to get anyway no matter what happened. And the mod Repubs got to look strong and reasonable while not hurting their party. That's why I don't think any of the judges were on the table. The mod Repubs couldn't give up even one of them, or they would lose their party's support. As it stands, they look like they stood up to both the Dems and the Repubs, and that gives them a lot of prestige, and it also helps the Republican party to look more moderate.

It was a compromise. No one got much, and everyone got to back down without too much egg on their face.

And to me, that's a Dem victory, since the Republicans over-sold their support for the nuclear option. Mainstream America will just see that the Repubs failed to kill the filibuster.

[KittyWampus]

4. Read The Document. It's Up To Each Senator To Decide.

why is this so hard to grasp?

[jobycom]

5. Whatever we say they are when we need to. That's why the Repubs

got nothing. Nothing changed, all their plans failed, and they only got what was offered to them a few weeks ago, and what they were going to get anyway. And they look stupid and arrogant, too. They lost, we won.

Now, let's hope Harry Reid can continue the trend.

[Goldeneye]

7. I found this on the Kerry forum,

but I think its from Freeperland.

[Just Me]

11. SPOT ON TOON!!!

Spot on! *LOL* :bounce:

[DawnneOBTS]

8. I don't know...

As much as I'd like to believe the "crisis" is over, I still think that BushCo (with Frist at the Senate helm) is not going to care. As KO gave Frist's words tonight, what Frist said..."I was not consulted." Doesn't seem to me that the extremist right-wing nut jobs give a damn about their seven "defectors." It was not a "majority rule." We'll see, I guess. And Harry Reid definitely said that the other two people don't get a vote at all. This isn't what Frist was saying-he wanted all or nothing. I don't think we've heard the last of this whole thing.

[Mika]

10. I don't think we've heard the last either.

Frist is from the undead.


www.stopbolton.org

[nuxvomica]

14. The three exempt nominees are the definition of EC

The agreement implies that by exempting them from the "extraordinary circumstances" option, they must be the standard for such a condition. Otherwise, why exempt them? So implicitly, any future nominee of the same level of fulsomeness as, say, Owen could be considered an "extraordinary circumstance." That's my reading, anyway.

[mmonk]

15. "extraordinary circumstances" means

if the Dems filibuster a bush nominee for the supreme court, they will use the nuclear option. In the meantime, welcome the new extreme judges to their circuits.

[smartvoter]

17. It was left at Senators' discretion. nt

[Fleshdancer]

19. The Democratic Leaders need to quickly define it for themselves

It all goes to crap if we sit and allow the WH or people like Frist or Delay define "extraordinary circumstances".

[Goldmund]

21. The $64,000 question.

[TahitiNut]

22. The Rapture, obviously.

:puke: What a fucking sell-out.